Menu

Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ specifically to associate opponents with those who deny the Holocaust occurred.

But when they talk about male scientists they are somewhat restrained. Here’s Michael Mann on Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT, and one of the most famous skeptics: “So Richard Lindzen is a scientist from MIT who has expressed contrarian views about climate change.” When astrophysicist Ken Rice, a consensus defender writes of Roger Pielke Jr., who disputes some elements of the consenssus, he writes “Okay, I do think that trying to improve the climate debate is commendable, so kudos to Roger for at least trying. ”

But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.

The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.

Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’

A paper published Nov. 29 in the American Institute of Biological Sciences journal ‘Bioscience’ bears the title ‘Internet Blogs, Polar Bears and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy’ calls Susan Crockford a denier. Their evidence is that other unidentified blogs that the paper’s authors call ‘denier’ blogs (without citing them, without showing what it is about those blogs that render them anathema) link to Dr. Crockford’s weblog.

Let’s be clear about this. Dr. Crockford does not deny climate change. She writes about polar bears and clears up some misconceptions being published about them. But because weblogs this paper’s authors don’t like link to Crockford, she is now labeled a ‘denialist.’ But again, the casual dismissal of her life’s work is more personal than professional. She is derided as someone who focused on dogs,with an inferred snigger.

This is actually a common Consensus tactic–when they cannot criticize the science, they go after the scientist. Or even the scientists’s fans… The truth about polar bears is that they have survived warmer periods than those predicted for us by the IPCC. Their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. And the biggest threat to polar bears are hunters–as many as 1,000 per year (out of a total population of about 30,000) are shot.

The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record, saying “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.” Crockford’s publications are listed here and include papers published in Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, Canadian Journal of Zoology and International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, among many others.

It is another attempt to delegitimize a respected and credentialed scientist, based not on what she writes, but on what others write about her.

The Consensus team is not shy about labeling, defaming and insulting those in opposition. But here we see once again that it is easier for them to do this with female opponents.

Michael Mann is famous–or infamous–as author of the Hockey Stick chart. But Jeffrey Harvey is not. Harvey is willing to defend Paul Ehrlich, who to my knowledge has never been right about anything, but is willing to throw fellow scientist Susan Crockford under the bus. Here’s Harvey defending Paul Ehrlich:

“Effectively, these scientists – experts with many hundreds of peer-reviewed articles amongst them and with many awards (e.g. Paul Ehrlich has been a past winner of the Crafoord Prize, an equivalent to the Nobel Prize in fields outside of that award) – have drawn conclusions that an ‘expert’ like Fuller disagrees with.”

Stefan Lewandowsky, famed for having retracted his flagship paper and moving out of the country to live down the shame of it, deserves little mention.

The central point emerging from their paper is unintentional on their part. Their opponents are eager to cite scientists in their arguments. Rather than denying science, they are eager consumers of it.

The central point of this post–that climate scientists are dismissive, personal and insulting, and more so when the subject of their disdain are female, is clear just from their quoted remarks.

On Judith Curry:

Bart Verheggen: “Her unfounded allegations are insulting for the whole profession. It increases the polarisation and doesn’t add to the building of bridges (perhaps a one-way bridge).”

Michael Tobis: “Anyone who thinks all is roses in the garden of science has to account for the rise of Dr Curry to a position of responsibility in academia. (Here I am on the sidelines and there sits Judith Curry on top of the heap.”

Michael Tobis: “So has she lost touch, or has she never had much scientific insight to begin with? That’s the only question any of this burbling raises. … On the other hand, to be honest no paper of hers has ever come across my radar in anything I’ve investigated.”

“It’s as if she had heard of science but never seen it done.”

On Susan Crockford:

Richard Littlemore: “Has beens, also-rans, deniers-for-hire on retainer at “think tank”. The scientists, ranging from …a sessional lecturer on the evolution and history of the domestic dog (Susan Crockford), include no top climate scientists currently publishing in the peer-reviewed literature.”

At the end of the day, members of the Consensus will dismiss this blog post in the same way they dismiss Susan Crockford–not because of the accuracy of the quotes listed here, not because of the truth or falsity of its central point, but because of provenance. It is posted on a blog called Climate Scepticism and hence is beyond the Pale.

The paper I am criticizing reminds me of several other junk science publications–‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ (Cook, Nuccitelli et al), ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change,’Anderegg, Prall et al and literally anything written by the biggest charlatan in climate science, Stefan Lewandowsky (one of the authors of this paper as well). The purpose of these papers is not to communicate.

Expertise
Life history strategies in parasitoids and hyperparasitoids, Plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions, Community ecology, Science and advocacy

(4) Science, ecology and advocacy.
Scientists are currently faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced simplification of the biosphere… At the same time, sophisticated techniques are being employed around the world by powerful, vested interests that are aiming to change the way the public thinks about the environment. For example, a number of dubious sources are invoking science as a tool to influence and reshape public opinion, to attack the consensus view held amongst the scientific community, and to ultimately influence politicians into reducing environmental regulations. In the face of this new threat from the political right, scientists are faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced changes to the biosphere and their consequent effects on the delivery of ecosystem services. Over the past several years I have become actively involved in discussions based on bridging economics and ecology, in an attempt to stem the relentless flow of disinformation emanating from a number of surprisingly well-endowed think tanks and public relations firms that are distorting science to support a political agenda and pre-determined worldview on environmental issues.

Rode, K. and Regehr, E.V. 2010. Polar bear research in the Chukchi and Bering Seas: A synopsis of 2010 field work. Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Anchorage. pdf here.

If I can step in front of other commenters, the fight to me seems to be the ongoing struggle to avoid marginalization, not because of the data we present or the analysis of it, but because we are not convinced by the policy prescriptions of the Consensus.

This paper starts off by labeling their policy opponents as deniers, a pejorative term that has no referent and is patently used to deligitimize. The paper lands on Susan Crockford as the proper case study to explore, apparently because of prior history of discussion with two of the paper’s authors. Apparently choosing the better known weblogs of Judith Curry or Steve McIntrye would not have yielded the separation of lines of communication the paper’s authors desired to see.

This fight has been ongoing for more than a decade and has been clearly described, often triumphally by those in the Consensus who brag about the damage they inflict on the reputations of people like Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, Happer, Dyson, Tol, both Pielkes, and on and on. It is also frequently described by opponents of the Consensus as a concerted and ongoing effort to undercut them (us) not because of science but because of politics. To date, the Consensus has not provided much of an answer to that argument.

Usually, in fact, we see the leading lights of the Consensus refusing to look at the work product of their opponents, claiming that they don’t need to evaluate the work of ‘deniers’ simply because they have labeled them ‘deniers.’

This paper, having labeled Crockford a ‘denier’, doesn’t examine her work product at all. They insult her and say ‘look at all the denier blogs that link to her.’

It’s part of the Mean Girls strategy, one that you ATTP are very familiar with. Your question appears to be a bit disingenuous.

Just out of interest, what is your plan for winning this supposed fight?

The Santer Gambit. Or failing that, ridicule. The second of their “science-based blogs” is “Advocacy for Animals” run by four employees of Britannica, a lady with an MA in English, a philosophy editor, author of over 20 books on philosophy, banking and finance, a sinologist (editor in chief at Britannica for the past 20 years) and a former editor for Britannica “specializing in small island states, scattered US states, Australia and New Zealand, and North and South Korea.”
“Science based” clearly means “agree with us consensus types.” And they’ve got a scatter diagram to prove it!

As for how we intend to win this fight, it’s my personal opinion that we won’t. The institutional forces arrayed against opponents of the Consensus are too strong.

As a Lukewarmer, I agree with large swathes of the science presented by the Consensus. I disagree with many of the policy prescriptions the Consensus presents as mandatory and minimum.

Recognizing that we may win every tactical battle and yet lose the war, my aim is to minimize the damage I believe will be caused by hasty and ill thought out policies, as already seen in areas such as wind turbine location, biofuels and adoption of diesel for passenger vehicles.

My tactic for this losing battle is to continue to confront the Consensus where it is wrong in such venues that are available to me. And to continue to call out poor behavior where I see it.

If I can step in front of other commenters, the fight to me seems to be the ongoing struggle to avoid marginalization, not because of the data we present or the analysis of it, but because we are not convinced by the policy prescriptions of the Consensus.

That’s both exceptionally well put and, unfortunately, nothing like adequate.

It is indeed “because we are not convinced by the policy prescriptions of the Consensus” far more than any views we might have on the science, even less “the data we present,” which, as you rightly say, is ignored for the slam-dunk reason we can be called Deniers. What intellectual heights.

But the moronic element in all this – witness the witless ‘SI’ released at Bart Simpson’s – takes me back to this, mentioned last month:

Read this quote if you want to understand purpose of political correctness. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. pic.twitter.com/eCDPYDwDzw

Alan Kendall asks: “If Dr Crockford is indeed a reputable researcher worthy of consideration and respect, why hadn’t she a flock of well researched prestigious peer-reviewed papers to her name?”

I don’t know but I sense a similarity in my own life; it is the extravert versus introvert thing.

I enjoy adventure and travel, often in cold hard climates. I’m very good at my work. I do not seek recognition and thus none is given.

It is easy enough to see a distinction between a publicity-seeking scientist, in my opinion typically rather arrogant, and a quiet, introverted researcher that might publish absolutely nothing in a lifetime, leaving it to others to do that sort of thing if they wish.

you would be wrong if you think Crockford is the only/primary target..

– ie – main text of ‘paper’

Watts Up With That (WUWT), which consistently denies AGW and/or threats linked to it, is described as “perhaps the most visited climate website in the world,” with “more than two million unique views a month” (Pearce 2010). Other AGW-denying blogs, such as Climate Depot (CD) and Junk Science (JS), are not far behind. Many denier blogs exist and, because of cross-linking, form a large echo chamber, making them what one journalist described as “foot soldiers of AGW denial”

these are the real targets… (as was Moon Hoax, Fury (both of them) Alice paper, etc,etc)

I hadn’t quite noted how littered the paper is with ‘denier’ . ‘denier blog’ references.

oh and this..

“Despite the growing evidence in support of AGW, these blogs continue to aggressively deny the causes and/or the projected effects of AGW and to personally attack scientists who publish peer-reviewed research in the field with the aim of fomenting doubt to maintain the consensus gap.”

I hear Mann and Lewandowsky’s whinging – and their ‘framing’ – science under attack, less data transparency, etc.

Tom — As for how we intend to win this fight, it’s my personal opinion that we won’t. The institutional forces arrayed against opponents of the Consensus are too strong.

I always thought that we would see a collapse of climate-environmentalism before we saw a Brexit. (Granted, it ain’t over yet, but…). In some senses, we’ve seen it begin to crumble in the US. Pro climate Western and European leaders have pushed it too hard – it will likely be more immigration than Energiewende that sees off Merkel (if that is her fate), but there is pressure on that policy too. A generation of climate policy has begun to manifest real consequences. Trudeau has angered very many outside his bubble. And in Australia, too, huge hikes in energy prices are creating a more real force. These are numbers games, not flame wars. The institutional machine is only capable of churning out trite volumes of recycled, politically-motivated material to overwhelm debate. And look how anxious it is. A confident body of thought does not act like Harvey et al.

Trump has to consider the USA’s funding of Climate Science by US Taxpayers. Presumably this will include Polar Bears and their experts, because these experts have aligned themselves with Lewandiowsky and Mann.

Alan, she probably has no publication record because she has no opportunity to study the animals. Victoria is far from polar bear country. Research is done largely by people living and working in the Arctic. Crockford takes that research and draws far reaching confident conclusions from it that suit her audience and sponsors but maybe is unsuitable for academic publication.

I was interested in some kind of answer, and I’m still not quite sure what the plan would be. I was wondering if it might be along the lines of publishing some kind of kind of high-impact, ground-breaking paper. That would certainly be effective. Has anyone considered this?

It is the nature of skeptics to be skeptical of other skeptics; thus there may be many plans rather than one big glorious Plan.

“I was wondering if it might be along the lines of publishing some kind of kind of high-impact, ground-breaking paper.”

Yes: “Climategate”.

I sense a bit of cart-before-horse, or who has burden of proof. I do not need to convince scholars that X proportion of climate change is attributable to human activity. The burden is upon scholars to convince taxpayers to give up heat, light and energy based on things only scholars understand anyway and for which no look-out-the-window evidence exists.

In what way is this significantly different than a priest or preacher telling you to give up your bad habits because eventually you will be judged and while you cannot see the evidence for it looking out the window, 97 percent of all priests agree that judgment is in the future?

What does it take for a Richard Dawkins to poke holes in a typical hard-line religion such as Catholicism? Not much; just demand to see God. What you’ll get is some claims of angels and statues that cry tears.

What does it take for someone to poke holes in climate change alarmism? Not much; just demand to see some climate change. What you’ll get is some claims about polar bears. How many of Earth’s 7 billion people have seen a polar bear? Do they CARE? Apparently few and not very much.

As it happens I know there’s a God, not the god of the Catholics or anyone else’s necessarily; but there is one. You may well be as sure of climate change and whose fault it is. That’s not the problem. The problem is convincing other people that you are right and they are wrong. A “paper” isn’t going to do that for most people, not even scholars.

I always thought that we would see a collapse of climate-environmentalism before we saw a Brexit. (Granted, it ain’t over yet, but…). In some senses, we’ve seen it begin to crumble in the US.

“it ain’t over yet … in some senses … etc”

It’s a moment of uncertainty. That really bothers the self-appointed experts. I can’t get Michael Palin as the cretinous Molotov out of my mind as I write that. It’s so undignified not having a clue. Except, of course, for real sceptics. Uncertainty is our life-force. 🙂

I’m sure that’s why ATTP is so desperate to know the plan. See you’all on board.

Len as per usual you display the credentials of a cretinous oaf. Is there no subject to which you can hide your faux expertise? I suggest you read Crockford’s own description of the work she conducts. But of course you will not accept its validity. You being so “well read”. I’m amazed you weren’t asked to be co-author #14, but of course your reticence prevented you.

Mr. Martinez, thank you for linking to that article. Did you read it? I’ll call your attention to a key passage:

“Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

News like this leaves climate-change deniers crowing from the rooftops. But a closer look reveals that everything may not be quite so sunny. “Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what’s frightening is what might happen in the very near future,” says wildlife biologist Lily Peacock, who has worked with polar bears for the Government of Nunavut and the U.S. Geological Survey. “All indications are that the future does not look bright.”

Ken A.T.T. Was-Physics poses the Leninist question; what is to be done? And asks when we’re publishing our paper. Patience Dr Rice. We at Cliscep are even now perfecting our predictive model as to when the great climate blancmange will finally slither down the wastepipe.
My own research on E-bay using the keywords “polar bear costume” indicates that it’s already happened. True, there are numerous offers, (990,000 according to Google) including:

an Inflatable Blow Up Full Body Polar Bear Costume with two attached fans. (Turn on the fan secretly hidden in the clothes into a power transformer directly. Fan starts to work.You will be fully expanded within 60 seconds.)

Transform yourself into one of the world’s large land predators this Halloween with polar bear costumes… For a more feminine look .. put a seductive twist on the traditional animal look for more fun… Growl your way through that night of trick-or-treating with polar bear costumes.

The funny thing is, none of the offers suggest wearing the thing to protest about climate change. It’s all about Halloween. Global Warming is folklore, like horoscopes and Father Christmas.

But, thanks to your own research into exo-planets, you know how close are science fantasy and science fact. Come over to the sensible side Ken, before it’s too late.

No idea how commenting here works. But want a funny story. If possible, research Deltoid archives where I specifically ask about Crawford. Probably 5 years ago. Was trashed immediately by non other than Dr. Harvey if I’m not mistaken. Right after she started her blog.

[Brian – welcome. Your first comment goes into mderation but follow-ups will go straight through if you use the same signup details – PM]

Poor Len, the uppity deniers are just refusing to do as they know rhey should be doing.
Even after he so kindly tells us, time and time again, what scummy deniers we are.
And his obvious desire to have been abke to have had a piece of giving it to that loud mouthed unworthy Canadian with his gang of heroes drips from his keyboard.
Keep it up Len, you’ll get us to understand you one of these days.

Have just read Susan Crockford over at WUWThttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-request-for-harvey-et-al-attack-paper-on-dr-susan-crockford/
It is a devastating document, tightly written, well documented and argued. Rather than being submitted as a request/demand for a retraction, it would be far more effective as a discussion paper. If this failed to get through peer review, so much more evidence for bias on the part of the journal and of the authors of the original piece of garbage. So why didn’t SC submit it in such a format? Too late now.

Clipe. Only part of it is a smear job, the remainder is just as insidious, just as biased and just as wrong. Look at this site, where’s the focus. Notice how tight that is. What’s being ignored?

I would argue that Susan needs official credibility and wider exposure. One possibility was for her rebuttal to have been peer reviewed and published. As I asserted, refusal of the Journal to do this would provide even more ammunition. As it is, knowledge of this travesty is confined to readers of Susan’s blog and a few other blogs like this one. This compared to all ecologists with access to a library.

To my knowledge this affair has not been picked up by the MSM. Why? A bust up between equals (peer reviewed publications) might well be.

A little unfair to use the word “excommunicate”. There is some nastiness from a commentator above about Roman Catholicism. But hey. It is Americas longest hatred. Excommunication is usually a pastoral affair. Not meant to punish or ostracize but allow the sinner a period of reflection. It is certainly in Roman Catholicism not meant to be public much also as confession is the same. Perhaps the physical should eschew the language of the metaphysical. Otherwise I like the article as it offers a political counterpoint to some of the ‘narratives’ bandied about. ( Forgive my grammar. I’m Irish. )